Most of the material included in this article was presented in a paper delivered at a joint session of the American Historical Association with the American Society for Reformation Research in Boston on December 30, 1970.

1. A comprehensive history of the Unity by Joseph Th. Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, in three volumes, appeared at Herrnhut, 1922–1931. More recently Rudolf Říčan published an outline in Czech, , Dějiny Jednoty bratrské (Prague, 1957),Google Scholar with a chapter on the Unity's doctrine by Amedeo Molnár. An abridged version of Říčan's book, Die Böhmischen Brüder, appeared in Berlin (Union Verlag) in 1961. There is a wealth of information concerning religious life in Bohemia and Moravia in an unfinished survey by Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Dějiny křesťanství v Československu, III–VI (Prague, 1947–1950; vol. VI ends in 1576).Google Scholar

2. The first persecution, during which Řehoř and some of his disciples were arrested and asked to recant in the presence of Rokycana, occurred in 1461. See Müller, I, 81–83.

3. The Brethren attempted to justify their decision in a letter to Rokycana but failed to convince him. He issued a pastoral letter against them in August 1468, and thus inaugurated a period of repressive measures which ended early in 1471 with Rokycana's and George's deaths. Scholars specializing in this period have given a good deal of attention to the motivations for Rokycana's and George's hostile policy. It has to be borne in mind that in 1467 George was under papal ban for his failure to fulfill his coronation oath, and that in 1468–71 he was at war with Matthias of Hungary. For general comment on this problem see Heymann, F. G., George of Bohemia: King of Heretics (Princeton, 1965), pp. 604–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Molnár, Amedeo published a study of Lucas's theology, Bratr Lukáš, bohoslovec Jednoty (Prague, 1948).Google Scholar J. Th. Müller compiled a list of Lucas's writings, altogether 140 titles, I, 535ff.

5. The changes in social structure and doctrine of the Unity have been thoroughly studied by Peter Brock. See his book, The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries (The Hague, 1957), esp. ch. VI, pp. 182ff.Google Scholar

6. Palacký, František published Vladislav's charter in Archiv český, VI (Prague, 1872), 391–93.Google ScholarMüller, J. Th. included its free translation in his Geschichte, I, 346–50.Google Scholar

7. Its text was published by Kalousek, Josef in Archiv český, X (Prague, 1890), 335–36.Google Scholar See also Müller, I, 351–53.

8. The origin and meaning of the term “Picard” (Pikhart, etc.) is highly controversial. The most plausible answer is that it derived from the name Bechard. As Heymann, F. G. says in his John Žižha and the Hussite Revolution (Princeton, 1955), p. 210,Google Scholar “the name Pikhart finally had a highly derogatory meaning and was used to voice the suspicion of heresy against anybody whom the moderate Hussites suspected of over-radical leanings.” The Catholic authors, when attacking the Brethren, used the term with no less delight than the Utraquist priests. Řehoř did not coin a precise term for his group. Its members knew each other as brothers and sisters. Around 1464 a more meaningful appeared in the sources: Brethren and Sisters of Christ's Law, but it was not officially adopted. At the time when Mladá Boleslav, a town on the domain of lords Krajíř of Krajek, became the principal center in Bohemia, the Brethren were often called the Brethren of Boleslav. The Brethren were also often identified with the Valdenses.

9. Rudolf Říčan has commented on the Brethren's decision to admit the lords in his Dějiny Jednoty bratrské, p. 141 (in the German translation, pp. 98ff.).

10. For more details concerning the rebaptism of adult candidates see Müller, II, 50ff.

11. A biographical sketch Augusta can be found in Odložilík, Otakar, “Two Reformation Leaders of the Unitas Fratrum,” Church History, IX (1940), 253–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. The Brethren put the text of these decrees into a collection of documents pertaining to the history of the Unity, Unitatis Fratrum, vol. VII. Müller quotes them from there: II, 207 and 213.

13. Müller, II, 225: Müller also published a translation of an account of Augusta's life in jail, compiled by his secretary, Bílek, , under the title Die Gefangenschaft des Joh. Augusta und seines Diakonen Jakob Bílek, von Bílek selbst geschrieben (Leipzig, 1895).Google Scholar In 1560 Philipine Welser, who was married clandestinely to the king's son Ferdinand, came to reside at Křivoklát. She became interested in the two prisoners and did all in her power to have their lot alleviated. Augusta and Bílek were escorted to Prague; their colloquies with the Jesuits yielded no positive results. Bílek was released, but Augusta was sent back to Křivoklát and was kept there until March 1564.

14. Gindely, Anton, Geschichte der böhmischen Brüder, I (Prague, 1857), 353,Google Scholar quoted a long passage from the captain's speech, culminating in a dramatic proclamation that Moravia would rather perish in fire and ashes than permit violence in matters of religion.

15. Jaroslav Bidlo wrote a detailed, solidly documented history of the Polish branch of the Unity, Jednota bratrská v pruním vyhnanství, I–IV (Prague, 1900–32).Google Scholar

16. In 1566 the Brethren published a German version of their hymnal and dedicated it to Maximilian; see Müller, II, 375. Although they had some influential friends at the court, such as the emperor's personal physician, Dr. Crato von Craftheim, they were unable to change the official policy. In 1568 Maximilian reissued Vladislav's decree, but did not insist on its enforcement.

17. In his book Česká konfese, její vznik, podstata a dějiny (Prague, 1912),Google Scholar Ferdinand Hrejsa described in detail discussions among the estates and negotiations with the royal court preceding the compilation of the Confessio bohemica; see pp. 86ff. He also compared, pp. 286ff., the Confessio bohemica with the Augustana and the confession of the Brethren printed in 1573 at Wittenberg, and pointed out the conciliatory spirit of its authors. Whenever the followers of Philip Melanchthon gained the upper hand among the Utraquists the prospects of cooperation with the Brethren brightened. It is true that in 1573 the Wittenberg theologians were reluctant to approve the Brethren's confession unqualifiedly, but the mere fact that it appeared there was significant. See Odložilík, Otakar, “Die Wittenberger Philippisten und die Brüderunität,” in Ost und West in der Geschichte des Denkens und der kulturellen Beziehungen, ed. Mohr, H. and Grau, C. (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), pp. 106–18.Google Scholar

18. Müller, II, 481–85, published their names in alphabetical order. Earlier historians, including Gindely, had exaggerated ideas concerning the number of the Brethren at the period of their flourishing. But Ferdinand Hrejsa undertook a systematic investigation of the congregations the Brethren had in Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland, and published the results in his Sborové Jednoty bratrsé (Prague, 1939).Google Scholar According to him (p. 17) a congregation (sbor) seldom had more than 200 members. He believes that all three branches, Bohemian, Moravian, and Polish, had no more than 45,000–50,000 members altogether. R. Říčan, Dějiny, p. 312, believes that the Brethren in Bohemia were no stronger than 1%, in Moravia 3% in Greater Poland one-half of 1% of the total population.

19. Hrejsa, Česká konfese, pp. 258–59.

20. See Toepke, G., ed., Die Matrikel der Universität Heidelberg, II: 1554–1662 (Heidelberg, 1886), 70.Google Scholar

21. See O. Odložilík, “Die Wittenberger Philippisten,” p. 115. The confession of 1573 was reprinted at Basel in 1575. In 1581 a collection of symbolic books of the Reformed type appeared in Geneva under the title Harmonia confessionum fidei orthodoxarum et reformatarum ecclesiarum. One of them (XI) was the confession of the Unity of 1573. The Brethren received the book with mixed feelings. They were glad that their views got more publicity, but were afraid that the book would serve as justification of charges that the Unity had lost its identity and become too closely linked with the Calvinists.

22. In 1582 Václav Sturm, a Jesuit of Czech origin, launched an offensive against the Unity. He published a rather long and repetitive treatise, Srovnání víry a učení Bratří starších, kteří sami sebe zákona Kristova a jiní je Valdenskými a Boleslavskými, jiní pak Pikharty imenují (Comparison of the faith and doctrine of senior Brethren who call themselves of Christ's Law, but by others are called Valdenses, or Boleslavs, and again by others Pikharts). Sturm dedicated his book to the leading Catholic magnate William of Rožmberk, whose younger brother Peter Vok joined the Unity in 1582. The Brethren were visibly embarrassed by Sturm's attack and reacted feebly, sensing danger in a protracted polemical warfare. But Sturm went on and published in quick succession several aggressive writings. Sturm possessed a copy of the Basel edition of the Unity's confession and quoted from its preface a short passage referring vaguely to the St. Bartholomew's Massacre. The preface was identical with that of the Wittenberg edition of 1573; the relevant passage ran as follows: “… etiam propter gentem nostram, quae non male est de veritatis Evangelicae instauratione merita neque ante haec tempora ex Europaeis aliqua plus sanguinis ei impendit, sed hoc tempore vicit nostros Gallica natio.…

23. Karel Stloukal published a well-documented article on Bonhomini's activities, “Počátky nunciatury v Praze,” Český Časopis Historický, XXXIV (1928), 1–24 and 237–79;Google Scholar for the contents of the promemoria see p. 246. Its full text can be found in August Theiner, Annales ecclesiastici, III (Rome, 1856), 546–47.Google Scholar The relevant passage reads as follows: “… nec adversus jusjurandum aut antecessorum suorum institutum Vestra Caesarea Regiaque Majestas quidquid sit innovatura, si iisdem vestigiis insistens Picardos, Calvinistas, Lutheranosque omnes ex Regno eliminari jubeat.” Rudolf's edict was dated July 27, 1584; its Czech text in Sněmy české, VI (Prague, 1890), 510;Google Scholar a Latin translation sent by Bonhomini to Rome in Theiner, III, 545.

24. The report arose from a discussion with the leading Catholic lords which took place in the home of William of Rožmberk; see Stloukal, pp. 270ff. Latin text in Theiner, III, 547–49.

25. Earlier historians, including Denis, Ernest, La fin de l'indépendance Bohême (Paris, 1890),Google Scholar did not grasp the significance of the transfer of the key positions from conservative and not too zealous aristocrats to young men, many of whom were trained in Jesuit schools. Josef Borovička gave a new interpretation to the fall of vice-chancellor Želinský and the emergence of the aggressive group in his “Pád Želinského. Obsazení nejvyššich zemských úřadů v Čechách v letech 1597–1599,” Český Časopis Historický, XXVIII (1922), 277–304.Google Scholar Karel Stloukal devoted to the same subject a chapter (“Zápas o úřady”) in his book on the papal policy and the imperial court, Papežská politika a císařský dvůr pražský na předělu 16. a 17. věku (Prague, 1925), pp. 153–66.Google Scholar

26. The text of Rudolf's decree in Sněmy české, X (Prague, 1900), 336;Google Scholar Julius Glücklich devoted a detailed study to its application, “Mandát proti Bratřím z 2. září 1602 a jeho provádění v létech 1602–1604,” in Věstník Král. České Společnosti Nauk, tř. I (philos-hist. class), 1904.

27. No comprehensive biography of Budovec in any language is available. An unfinished biography of Žerotín up to 1615, from the pen of Peter von Chlumecky, Carl von Zierotin und seine Zeit, appeared at Brno, 1862. A concise biographical study by Otakar Odložilík, Karel starší ze Žerotína, 1564–1636, appeared in Prague, 1936. See also his article “Karel of Žerotín and the English Court, 1564–1636,” Slavonic and East European Review, XV, no. 44 (1937).Google ScholarBartoš, F. M. presented some aspects of Budovec's work in his article “Wenceslas Budovec's Defense of the Brethren and of Freedom of Conscience in 1604,” Church History, XXVIII (1959), 229–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Among Budovec's and Žerotín's correspondents were the theologians Theodore de Bèze and Johann Jac. Grynaeus; princes and statesmen Philip Ludwig v. Hanau, Philippe du Plessis Mornay; envoys of Henry IV at Rudolf's court Ancel and Baugy, etc. In Austria their principal allies were Georg E. Tschernembel and Richard von Starhemberg; in Hungary Stephen Illesházy and George Thurzo.

28. Kamil Krofta published a succinct analysis of the Letter, Majestát Rudolfa II (Prague, 1909).Google Scholar Ferdinand Hrejsa has detailed chapter on the negotiations in 1609 in his Česká konfese, pp. 443ff.

29. On August 30, 1608, Matthias assured the estates that there would be no change in the traditional policy observed by his predecessors, and that he would not oppress anybody for faith. See Kameníček, František, Zemské a sněmy a sjezdy moravské, I (Brno, 1900), 479.Google Scholar

30. Julius Glücklich published Budovec's second letter to Charles Žerotín, dated April 17, 1619, in the first volume of Budovec's correspondence with friends at home and abroad, Václava Budovce z Budova korrespondence z let 1579–1619 (Prague, 1918), pp. 164–72.Google Scholar Budovec's first letter and Žerotín's reply are not available.

31. František Hrubý published a biography of this member of the Žerotín family, Ladislav Velen z Žerotína (Prague, 1930). For his studies abroad see pp. 14ff.Google Scholar

32. Gindely, Anton left unfinished a book, Gegenreformation in Böhmen. It was published after his death by Tupetz, Prague, 1894.Google Scholar